Cost of Cigarette Litter May Fall on San Fran. Smokers [NYT]

[Feil]

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/19 ... odayspaper (link will only be valid today 19 May)

Cost of Cigarette Litter May Fall on San Francisco’s Smokers

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: May 18, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — In what he casts as an attack on litterbugs and nicotine addiction alike, Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose a fee on an age-old inhabitant of city streets: the cigarette butt.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Jim Wilson/The New York Times

San Francisco spends an estimated $10.7 million a year removing cigarette butts from gutters, drainpipes and sidewalks.
Readers' Comments

"Give me a break. An added tax wouldn't stop [someone] throwing down a cigarette butt."

Joe Arevalo, Germany

* Read Full Comment »
* Post a Comment »

The proposal, to be introduced next month to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would add 33 cents to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, to offset the estimated $10.7 million the city spends annually removing discarded butts from gutters, drainpipes and sidewalks.

The added cost, Mr. Newsom hopes, will also dampen smokers’ urge to light up.

“In general, fees help reduce the consumption and use of tobacco,” he said in an interview. “And we think that will have a very beneficial public health component.”

Officials here say the municipal fee would be the first in the country to take aim specifically at cigarette butts, particularly filters, which are not biodegradable. But the idea is expected to run into fierce opposition from tobacco companies.

“Obviously we think people should follow the littering laws, in California and elsewhere,” said Frank Lester, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc., the nation’s second-largest manufacturer of cigarettes. “But we oppose any additional taxation on smokers to pay for that.”

Philip Morris USA, the nation’s biggest cigarette company, generally echoed that anti-fee sentiment, though it said it would not comment on Mr. Newsom’s proposal specifically until it was formally presented to the board.

San Francisco has already proved to be tough on smokers. Last year the city imposed a ban on the sale of tobacco at drugstores, a restriction that is being challenged in state and federal courts.

Mr. Newsom, moreover, has shown a willingness to legislate good health in other ways, proposing a fee in 2007 on any large store that sells drinks with high levels of fructose corn syrup. This so-called soda tax has not yet been taken up by the Board of Supervisors but is expected to be debated there this summer, said Nathan Ballard, a mayoral spokesman.

Mr. Newsom said cigarette butts became a target after San Francisco’s annual “litter audit” found that cigarette detritus made up a quarter of all the trash in the city’s public spaces. With the city spending some $44 million a year on litter cleanup — and facing a $500 million deficit for the coming fiscal year — a fee was born.

“It’s not a huge part of the overall budget,” the mayor said of the $11 million or so in annual revenue that the fee could generate. “But it’s enough to keep street sweepers employed.”

But Mr. Lester, of Reynolds American, said smokers were often targets of budget-crunched legislators, most recently on April 1, when the federal excise tax on cigarettes rose 62 cents a pack, to $1.01. “We feel smokers are already paying their fair share,” he said.

Serena Chen, regional director of policy and tobacco programs for the American Lung Association in California, said litter-mitigation efforts aimed specifically at cigarettes had been proposed in legislatures in a couple of states (though never enacted), but that a city-level approach was new and welcome.

“Anytime you raise the price of cigarettes, you discourage new starters,” Ms. Chen said, “and you increase the motivation of people who want to quit.”

Thank you, San Francisco. I hope this goes through, even though I live on the opposite side of the country. It's about time legislators did something about the assholes who think it's OK to drop their spittle-covered non-biodegradable fire-hazard refuse on public streets and parks.

[General Zod]

Good. If the douchebags are too lazy to dispose of the butts properly they can help pay for the cleanup.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well, the only criticism I have is that the government is going to get used to the revenue stream regardless of the original source of the tax and this will simply be tacked onto the forward budgets.

But those assholes need to stop smoking anyhow, and flicking cigarette butts is high douchebaggery in my book.

[KlavoHunter]

I was driving in Milwaukee a couple of weeks ago, and when I pulled into the left-turn lane, I was disgusted to see that the median was filled with cigarette butts, an absolutely astonishing number of them.

At least San Francisco bothers to clean them up.

[Erik von Nein]

Yeah, it's pretty bad sometimes. It's gotten better, sort of, as California keeps making it harder to find areas to smoke in, but the gutters, various cracks and corners, and allies can be coated in the things.

Hey, at least they're taxing the people who actually cause this litter. I'm glad. Hope my town follows suit. It was one of the firs to ban smoking indoors in the state.

EDIT:

Oh, I meant to add, the reason for my comment about taxing the right people was because in the town I live in there's a rather substantial college population and the downtown area has a bunch of bars. Well, these patrons usually end up missing toilets a lot, or like littering in general. The city, to deal with the mess, taxes the property owners downtown (via their downtown business associates fees) to clean up the mess. This has caused a bunch of them to complain, since their patrons aren't coming in, buying some jewelry or books, then immediately vomiting outside their establishment.

Anyway, the article just reminded me of that.

[Mr Bean]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

[General Zod]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

On the other hand if they're paying more they'll most likely be smoking less, so it seems to balance out.

[Erik von Nein]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

Er, is there any evidence that taxing for a service is going to increase the amount of litter?

[Darth Wong]

The kind of asshole who thinks that way is already littering anyway.

[Master of Ossus]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

How does that work? They can still be fined for littering if they get caught (which is, admittedly, an unlikely occurence), but they should also be discouraged from smoking to begin with because of the higher costs involved. It's not like they've repealed the underlying litter laws for cigarette butts.

[Havok]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

You are also assuming smokers bother trying in the first place. In my experience, they don't. For some weird reason, smokers don't consider their butts litter. I think part of it is that no one enforces littering laws against smokers. I have never even heard of someone getting a ticket from throwing their butts on the ground.

[General Zod]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

You are also assuming smokers bother trying in the first place. In my experience, they don't. For some weird reason, smokers don't consider their butts litter. I think part of it is that no one enforces littering laws against smokers. I have never even heard of someone getting a ticket from throwing their butts on the ground.

The only time I ever hear of it being enforced is when some dipshit winds up causing a fire because he carelessly threw his butts into some gasoline at a gas station or some dry brush in a forest.

[Darth Wong]

The "throwing cigarette butts on the ground" thing is one of the worst attributes of smokers. They always say "Oh no, I try not to do that!" when you confront them, but I have never known a smoker in my life who didn't regularly do it anyway. I don't think they're even conscious of it.

[Erik von Nein]

Hell, it's an additional problem in this state due to the amount of wild fires started by thrown cigarette butts from cars. If this discourages that sort of practice all the better that the state should implement it as well.

[Havok]

The "throwing cigarette butts on the ground" thing is one of the worst attributes of smokers. They always say "Oh no, I try not to do that!" when you confront them, but I have never known a smoker in my life who didn't regularly do it anyway. I don't think they're even conscious of it.

They aren't. It is as much of a habit as smoking itself is. I have worked the door of, shit, countless bars and clubs, and even when there is an ashtray outside, and there almost always is, I'd say about 15% of the butts actually make it in there. It certainly doesn't help that the smokers are getting drunk as well. But even outside restaurants and businesses, minus the abundance of alcohol, it is usually the same story.

[Havok]

You do know if you tax people to clean this up that litter will likely increase? After all, by charging people the cost to clean it up it's now viewed as a service. I pay .33cents to clean up said filters, I'm not even going to bother trying?

Keep in mind I both do not smoke, and am speaking in the context of a theoretical anti-tax bum who's doing this already.

You are also assuming smokers bother trying in the first place. In my experience, they don't. For some weird reason, smokers don't consider their butts litter. I think part of it is that no one enforces littering laws against smokers. I have never even heard of someone getting a ticket from throwing their butts on the ground.

The only time I ever hear of it being enforced is when some dipshit winds up causing a fire because he carelessly threw his butts into some gasoline at a gas station or some dry brush in a forest.

Well I wouldn't exactly call that being 'enforced' as I'm sure the arson charge at that point is all anyone is concerned about, not a littering ticket.

[Agent Fisher]

Well, I guess a smoker will now chime in about this.

GOOD! I police my own butts, but I'm tired of seeing millions of these things sitting around. Sadly, this tax will do nothing to deter it, but at least it'll help pay to get the butts cleaned up.

[Teebs]

Well, the only criticism I have is that the government is going to get used to the revenue stream regardless of the original source of the tax and this will simply be tacked onto the forward budgets.

But those assholes need to stop smoking anyhow, and flicking cigarette butts is high douchebaggery in my book.

But if they're losing an equivalent amount from the general revenue stream cleaning up the butts then that hardly matters.

[PeZook]

I have never even heard of someone getting a ticket from throwing their butts on the ground.

I've seen it, once. A City Guard caught and fined a university professor who taught one of my classes. And scolded him for it, loudly, in front of an entire busload of students attending his various classes.

Oh what an awesome moment that was...too bad they don't happen often.

[KrauserKrauser]

But if they're losing an equivalent amount from the general revenue stream cleaning up the butts then that hardly matters.

Agreed but if their taxation plan is effective and the amount of butts are reduced either through lower number of smokers or less discarded butts, the tax revenues will decrease over time and if my state, Virginia, is any example with declining revenues from one previous smokers tax, the revenue stream will be filled via other taxes and not eliminated because it performed it's task to completion.

[Darth Wong]

But if they're losing an equivalent amount from the general revenue stream cleaning up the butts then that hardly matters.

Agreed but if their taxation plan is effective and the amount of butts are reduced either through lower number of smokers or less discarded butts, the tax revenues will decrease over time and if my state, Virginia, is any example with declining revenues from one previous smokers tax, the revenue stream will be filled via other taxes and not eliminated because it performed it's task to completion.

Obviously, in an era where most governments seem to be running deficits, they need any revenue stream they can find. The idea that certain kinds of revenue go directly to certain projects and should be discontinued once that project is discontinued is just absurd, unless the budget is balanced.

Of course, I suppose one could just say "cut spending!" but that's far easier said than done.

[FireNexus]

The "throwing cigarette butts on the ground" thing is one of the worst attributes of smokers. They always say "Oh no, I try not to do that!" when you confront them, but I have never known a smoker in my life who didn't regularly do it anyway. I don't think they're even conscious of it.

It's true. when i smoked I did it all the time. I acted like I didn't like to, but I always did it. Looking back, I hate myself for it. But looking back I hate myself for starting smoking in the first place.

[Mr Bean]

Funny I remembered this topic when I was driving home today and the very nice looking BMW convertible in front of me had three people in it.

The best part? All three were smoking and all three were chucking cigarettes from the open top. Because of traffic often then not they were hitting cars.